FORAMINTPRR A— HERON-ALLEN AND EARLAND. 39 



new family to which Carpenter, Parker ami -Tones in their "Introduction" 

 (C, P. and J., 1862, I.S.F., p. 140) gave the name of Lituolida. Their explanation 

 of the matter is as follows : — 



The family Lituolida " is distinguished from all other types of Foraminifera by 

 this circumstance — that whereas we find, both in the porcellanous and in the vitreous 

 series, that the individuals of particidar genera occasionally exhibit an arenaceous 

 incrustation, this is simply an addition to the calcareous shells proper to their respective 

 types, and is not a substitute for it — whilst in these arenaceous types the investment 

 of the body, although presentmg the regular conformation of a calcareous shell, 

 is really a ' test ' composed of an aggregation of particles obtained from 

 external sources, the organic cement by which these particles are united being 

 all that is furnished by the animal." 



The imiovation was by no means accepted without reserve by the workers 

 upon the group. Brady, in his preliminary paper upon the Reticularian Rhizopods 

 of the "Challenger" Expedition (B. 1879, etc., R.R.C, p. 23) reviews the situation, 

 and, after stating the position taken up by Carpenter, Parker and Jones, goes 

 on to say : — " Professor Reuss, writing about the same time, whilst admittmg the 

 difficulties of the position, proposes to divide the somewhat miwieldy group 

 included in the genus Lituokt of English systematists ; and, as a matter of 

 convenience, there was even then, no doubt, much to be said in favour of his 

 view. In his latest work, published after his death* he divides the family 



Lituolidea of the ' Introduction ' into four genera It will, however, become 



manifest as we proceed, that neither of these schemes are any longer applicable 

 to the purpose for which they were devised, and the more recent suggestions of 

 Professor Zittel (Z. 1876, H.P.) and Professor Rupert Jones t scarcely satisfy the 

 exigencies of the present position." 



On p. 28 he elaborates these observations in a passage too long to quote, 

 but which is very germane to the question we are discussing. 



The first real note of alarm was sounded by Biltschli in 1880 in Bronn's 

 " Klassen mid Ordmmgen des Thier-reichs." (Vol. I, Protozoa, Leipzig, 1880, 

 p. 193), Avhere he says : — 



" We assemble here a series of sandy-shelled Rhizopods, to some extent very 

 incompletely understood, mostly monothalamous, but also at times of poly- 

 thalamous construction. The assemblage (or association) of these forms is quite 

 provisional, and depends upon, or results only from, the fact that up till now 

 it does not appear possible to arrange them natiually in any other way, and 

 we share the opinions frequently pronounced and expressed by others, that 



* In Geinitz. Das Elbthalgebirge in SacWen. Palaeont. vol. xx. Ft. 1. 1871-5. p. 119. 

 t Monthly Micr. Journ., Feb., 1876. p. 89. 



